Yesterday the Chicago Sun-Times gleefully posted a report “Support For Same Sex Marriage Grows.” A couple of points. First, poll numbers used to be against the pro-life movement, and that is not the case today. Second, when our Republican elected officials are mostly AWOL on the topic of traditional marriage, what do you expect?
Several interesting commentary and news pieces have been written in the past few days – as well as a few embarrassing editorials like the one from the getting-more-liberal-by-the day Chicago Tribune in defense of fake marriage, otherwise known as “civil unions.”
It’s not worth reading – in fact, few Trib editorials are since it’s hard to take them seriously after they told us all to “jump in the pool” back during the infamous and failed “gay games” a few years ago.
(Hey Sam Zell, if you want to try to save the Tribune, call me, I have a bunch of very good ideas – particularly on the personnel over there.)
Over at the other “major” bankrupt Chicago newspaper, Sun-Times columnist Mark Brown had a piece yesterday with this two-part headline:
“124 Chicagoans among first polygamists, polyamorists, and siblings to marry.
Hundreds of groups take out marriage licenses on first day.”
No, wait, that’s the title of his column in a couple of years. His column yesterday was “4 ex-Chicagoans among first lesbians to marry in Iowa: Hundreds of same-sex couples take out marriage licenses on first day.” As expected, it was a moving, emotional, tear-jerking, feel good story of the year. Just kidding.
I look forward Mark’s intellectual defense for why we should now move the line to only allow for the definition of “marriage” to include – one man + one man AND one woman + one woman. Seems awfully discriminatory to not allow groups to marry (et al). Who is Mark Brown to say that groups who want to marry weren’t “born that way” and thus entitled to “civil rights”?
For worthwhile reading – click here: “How Iowa Happened.” It’s a revealing looking into our courts and our legal system written by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D. Surely by now thinking Americans realize that many lawyers and judges aren’t serious or honest people, despite the pretense. I’ve been to law school and can tell you, it’s not high science they’ve studied.
In the article, Morse writes:
“The debate over marriage hinges in large part on what people think is the subject: Advocates of genderless marriage believe it is about fairness and equality. Advocates of conjugal marriage believe it is about the role of marriage.”
She’s exactly right. And not enough people are taking time to learn what that role is. On the one hand this is understandable, since it wasn’t that long ago no one would’ve ever dreamed we’d have to be defending this centuries old institution.
How often do you hear an elected Republican state legislator or member of Congress make an aggressive argument in defense of traditional marriage? The answer to that question gives you yet another reason why we need a Republican Renaissance.
Last summer I posted a batch of articles containing materials culled from people who understand the issue of marriage. It’s not about two people (of whatever gender) feeling really-really-really strong feelings. Marriage is a building block for a civilized society. Tear it down at your own peril.
©2009 John F. Biver
